Palestianian atheist arrested

[croak]

I've been skimming through his blog (the English version) and I think I've found the passage you are referring to:

'You may object to faith in the existence of god outside you. But what objection have you to call that power god which makes you and me talk, walk, eat, think and work? God is the power within us?'

Is that correct?

I think it has to do with the Facebook page he created: ‫الله | Facebook‬

الله أنا الرب الرحيم@ خالق الكون العظيم@ غني عن العالمين@ لا أريدهم أنيعبدون@ لا أحرقهم بالنار ولا أرميهم في الحميم@ فليهيموا بالفنون@ أكتبلهم الجنة في يوم البعث هم فيها خالدون@ فيها شواء@ ونساء كهيفاء@ أماالكافرون@ فسماح وغفران إني رب حليم@ في بيوت من طين@ وأكل من علب الطون@ونساء متدليات البطون@ جمالهن دون

I somewhat understand that. Anyway, the point being that in the first sentence, he says, "Allah, I am The Merciful Lord", who created the universe, who doesn't burn people, etc.

Description:انا الله ربكم و رب ابائكم الاولين

According to Google Translate, it reads, "I am God your Lord and the Lord of your earliest ancestors". God is specifically Allah.

Also, he created ‫الله - الفرع الثاني | Facebook‬ and ‫الله | Facebook‬ (according to http://www.mideastyouth.com/2010/11/09/waleed-al-husseini-is-the-new-kareem-amer/ ).

Huh, a SuperAllah in the second one. In the third one, he says:

بعد وفاة اخر رسلي محمد ولانه لا يمكنني ان ابعث نبي
قررت ان اتواصل معكم من خلال هذه الصفحة لكي اعلمكم بوجودي واحقق لكم دعواتكم

After my final messenger Muhammad died, and because I am unable to send a prophet, I decided to reach(?) you via this page in order to teach you with my presence and to make true your prayers.

I think I'll double-check my translation:

After the death of Muhammad and other messengers that I can not send a prophet
I decided to communicate with you through this page to announce to you my presence and I would bring you Beautiful

Close enough. Although I really don't get that last line. And I thought teach didn't make sense... announce it is.

EDIT: Some of the messages are new, so somebody else has access to one or more of the accounts, I would think. In any case, the link above says he created them.

 

[.lava]

i read your replies. i thought i should mention i am not ignoring replies. many pages and a few people reply at the same time; it is kind of tiring. can we sum this up? what's there i should explain?

.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'll give an example:
This video, [youtube]oFXIALf9zDA[/youtube]
"Beware the Believers", could be seen as using satire to make fun of and insult, not only atheism, but science as well. And personally I hold science to be the most important idea we humans have ever come up with (to be sure I also consider religions to be human "ideas" but no matter) but instead of becoming insulted I find the video to be somewhat fun and rather catchy. And I don't take myself and my opinions (religious faith is also just an opinion) so seriously that I would outlaw making fun of them?

Hmmm... what's your address and schedule again?

Why?

Oh, no reason... :sarcastic *cracks baseball bat against palm*

 

[Meow Mix]

Also now that I watched the Dawkins video... LOL!

 

[Meow Mix]

EDIT: Some of the messages are new, so somebody else has access to one or more of the accounts, I would think. In any case, the link above says he created them.

And it sounds to me like perfectly well intentioned satire to attempt to make a point.

Definitely not worth ruining his life over.

 

[Meow Mix]

i read your replies. i thought i should mention i am not ignoring replies. many pages and a few people reply at the same time; it is kind of tiring. can we sum this up? what's there i should explain?
.

Yeah I know you're getting swamped by a bunch of us, sorry.

To sum it up I guess: we don't see how it's conscionable to jail people for expressing an opinion. You call it an insult, but one man's innocent argument is another man (or woman's) insult. I've seen nothing from this man's pages that have been translated to English for me that were insulting or designed only to insult rather than to drive a point. Neither do I think have the other folks who are outraged about this, though I can't speak for them.

The reason this conversation keeps going on is because I, and probably "we," don't understand how you can support oppression of someone for giving an opinion. Again, "opinion/insult" is not as black and white as you make it.

 

[.lava]

Yeah I know you're getting swamped by a bunch of us, sorry.

To sum it up I guess: we don't see how it's conscionable to jail people for expressing an opinion. You call it an insult, but one man's innocent argument is another man (or woman's) insult. I've seen nothing from this man's pages that have been translated to English for me that were insulting or designed only to insult rather than to drive a point. Neither do I think have the other folks who are outraged about this, though I can't speak for them.

The reason this conversation keeps going on is because I, and probably "we," don't understand how you can support oppression of someone for giving an opinion. Again, "opinion/insult" is not as black and white as you make it.

OK, thank you for shorten it for me.

1- i am not saying it is OK to jail or to punish people for having an opinion or a different belief.

2- i am not supporting oppression.

seems all we have left is where to draw the line between opinion and insult. is that it?

.

 

[Meow Mix]

OK, thank you for shorten it for me.

1- i am not saying it is OK to jail or to punish people for having an opinion or a different belief.

2- i am not supporting oppression.

seems all we have left is where to draw the line between opinion and insult. is that it?

.

Yep. Was this atheist insulting objectively?

Or was he making an argument for expressing his opinion on matters?

 

[.lava]

Yep. Was this atheist insulting objectively?

Or was he making an argument for expressing his opinion on matters?

i haven't read his blog. i can recall news say that he insulted the divine essence

.

 

[Meow Mix]

i haven't read his blog. i can recall news say that he insulted the divine essence

.

But... again, someone can be making a perfectly reasonable argument that someone TAKES as an insult.

I have read everything he's typed that's been translated to English. I've found zero insults, just argumentation.

Apparently the Palestinian authorities interpret arguing against the divinity of Mohammed to be an "insult." Do you agree that is an insult?

Edit: Also I find it ironic that you were so skeptical of the media up until it said something that supported what you've been arguing.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also here's a really good idea.

Can you please define what it takes to "insult the divine essence," and then if you don't want to, *I* will read through all his English blogs and see if he did such a thing?

Something tells me though that no one will ever be able to define what "insulting the divine essence" is in such a way that it couldn't possibly include a legitimate opinion that someone might form.

 

[.lava]

But... again, someone can be making a perfectly reasonable argument that someone TAKES as an insult.

I have read everything he's typed that's been translated to English. I've found zero insults, just argumentation.

Apparently the Palestinian authorities interpret arguing against the divinity of Mohammed to be an "insult." Do you agree that is an insult?

Edit: Also I find it ironic that you were so skeptical of the media up until it said something that supported what you've been arguing.

i am also tired of this the news in OP haven't changed. i refused to make comment on it for pages. then i had to take that story as the truth just to share my opinions. now you're accusing me for having two faces. seriously, find yourself another toy. i can't even answer myself why i spent all this time trying to explain myself to you. geez..

ps: no, i don't think it is an insult. no need to reply me. i am done with this kind of attitude (tonight, at least)

.

 

[Meow Mix]

Sorry it got heated, just trying to understand... see you elsewhere on the boards, I'll drop it with you on this topic :rainbow1:

 

[jarofthoughts]

Also now that I watched the Dawkins video... LOL!

I was quite active on the forums on Dawkins' webpage (before they ruined the forums) when this video first appeared on Youtube. Dawkins was actually a bit grouchy about it (Although he never voiced anything that could be interpreted as if he wanted it removed. He cares WAY too much about free speech for that.), something that he actually got some comments on from his fans to the effect of 'this is all in good fun' and 'no need to take ourselves so seriously'.
This goes to show that while many people appreciate the work Dawkins has done (his books on Evolution are pure brilliance IMO) they do not "fall in line" or get needlessly angry when someone makes fun of them or something they consider important.

To quite Bill Hicks: "Oh sorry. I was taking life seriously."

 

[jarofthoughts]

Hmmm... what's your address and schedule again?

Why?

Oh, no reason... :sarcastic *cracks baseball bat against palm*

You, me and a...baseball bat?!?

Not the kind of date I'm used to, but I guess I can try to be open minded...

 

[.lava]

OK Meow Mix, i partially read English version of what he wrote and i dislike it. i consider it an attack on Islam, Islamic belief and feelings of Muslims. i did not read it all but the parts i read remind me what i hear from enemies of Islam. matter of fact it is perfect match. the exact same stuff. full of lies and slander. i would be happier if each of those lies and slanders were responded with true version of everything. seems like he has to attack Islam because that's the religion he left. he could have done it without causing problems. he could have done it without being threatened to death. he could have done it peacefully. but he did not. i don't understand why he has to attack and say bad things about Islam. i would not welcome it and i don't respect it. i don't believe it is his right to do that

.

 

[Meow Mix]

OK Meow Mix, i partially read English version of what he wrote and i dislike it. i consider it an attack on Islam, Islamic belief and feelings of Muslims. i did not read it all but the parts i read remind me what i hear from enemies of Islam. matter of fact it is perfect match. the exact same stuff. full of lies and slander. i would be happier if each of those lies and slanders were responded with true version of everything. seems like he has to attack Islam because that's the religion he left. he could have done it without causing problems. he could have done it without being threatened to death. he could have done it peacefully. but he did not. i don't understand why he has to attack and say bad things about Islam. i would not welcome it and i don't respect it. i don't believe it is his right to do that
.

Well, don't really want to get back into it but I think it's his right to share his opinion on the religion he left. "This is why I'm not a Muslim anymore, because I think it's like this," basically. He's no more an enemy of Islam than I am an enemy of Christianity (the religion that I left). I, too, argue against Christianity because it's what I'm most familiar with.

I'm not saying you have to like what he says, or that you shouldn't think he's a foul person for saying it... I'm just saying using the force of law against him for doing it (and that includes anything, even exile or censorship of his web page) is oppressive. I know you've said you disagree that it's oppressive to censor people from saying what he's said, so again it just comes down to us disagreeing. I just know I would be afraid to live in a country that thinks it's ok to censor because it becomes a slippery slope real fast, and that's why freedom of expression has evolved the way it has in places that have it. It's also not just about me being afraid to live in such places, it's that unfortunately some poor souls are born there who will not agree with those around them and people who agree with censorship are basically just telling them to sit down and shut up as second class citizens. I feel sorry for those people, and that's why I'm outraged over the OP's article.

I would also be outraged if a man born in a majority Christian country who decided to convert to Islam started a blog trying to argue that Jesus isn't God. This would probably infuriate and "insult" the majority in that country, but it's his right to post his argument if he wants. The Christians in such a country would be just as brutish if they censored him as the Palestinians are for censoring this atheist man. I understand it's probably hard to think about it in terms like this since incidentally this man was arguing against something that you hold VERY dear, but I just don't see any justification for censoring him. Censoring him is oppressive. He's not barging down the streets with a megaphone, he's typing his opinion in a way that people can optionally read it or not. He's not being overtly offensive, he's just making arguments that question the divinity of something -- that isn't itself an insult, it's only insulting in that some people hold it very dear and some might consider any questioning of it to be an "insult."

 

[.lava]

Well, don't really want to get back into it but I think it's his right to share his opinion on the religion he left. "This is why I'm not a Muslim anymore, because I think it's like this," basically. He's no more an enemy of Islam than I am an enemy of Christianity (the religion that I left). I, too, argue against Christianity because it's what I'm most familiar with.

I'm not saying you have to like what he says, or that you shouldn't think he's a foul person for saying it... I'm just saying using the force of law against him for doing it (and that includes anything, even exile or censorship of his web page) is oppressive. I know you've said you disagree that it's oppressive to censor people from saying what he's said, so again it just comes down to us disagreeing. I just know I would be afraid to live in a country that thinks it's ok to censor because it becomes a slippery slope real fast, and that's why freedom of expression has evolved the way it has in places that have it. It's also not just about me being afraid to live in such places, it's that unfortunately some poor souls are born there who will not agree with those around them and people who agree with censorship are basically just telling them to sit down and shut up as second class citizens. I feel sorry for those people, and that's why I'm outraged over the OP's article.

we agree to disagree then. i am fine with it. just note that calling Prophet a rapist is not acceptable. even if laws let you, someone who could not stand hearing such a lie might attack you physically. i rather not see this kind of expressions in my nation because i sincerely do not want new generations grow up seeing and hearing lies about our beloved Prophet

oh, and i apologize for giving emotional reaction earlier. it was an attitude i wasnot expecting from you. but still, i could have been more logical and rational

.

 

[jarofthoughts]

i consider it an attack on Islam, Islamic belief and feelings of Muslims.

Is there any reason why Islam should be exempt from verbal attack?

i did not read it all but the parts i read remind me what i hear from enemies of Islam.

Any idea has enemies, or at least, opponents. Islam needs to accept that they are no different and that legislation and/or violence is not an accepted response.

full of lies and slander. i would be happier if each of those lies and slanders were responded with true version of everything.

And nothing is stopping you or anyone else from making your version available.

seems like he has to attack Islam because that's the religion he left.

Probably, but he also attacks religions in general. Which is his right.

he could have done it without causing problems.

You seem to be missing the point. He WANTED to cause problems. All people who try to initiate a change of some kind are causing problems for those who are opposed to change. And that is exactly how it should be.

he could have done it without being threatened to death.

No-one should receive death threats for voicing their opinion.

he could have done it peacefully. but he did not.

Yes he did.
Words are not violent.
As far as I can see he has never physically attacked anyone nor has he incited violence.
Hence, he did this in a peaceful manner.

i don't understand why he has to attack and say bad things about Islam.

Because he dislikes the whole idea of Islam and would want to see it removed if he so could.
What's hard to understand about that?

i would not welcome it and i don't respect it. i don't believe it is his right to do that

People have the right to their opinions.
They also have the right to tell other people about those opinions.

Are Muslims so afraid of letting people judge for themselves that they must ban the opinions of others?
Why do they feel that a free open discourse is so dangerous?
If Islam is such a perfect idea shouldn't it be able to stand on its own merit?
Does god really need someone to defend him?

 

[Sahar]

Lava, you have done a great job in this thread...Bravo!